I'm afraid I don't quite follow.

You accept that the extradition hearing was not trying to determine whether or not Assange was guilty. The prosecutor needed to prove that the European arrest warrant was valid, but didn't need to prove that Assange was guilty. The prosecutor provided evidence to show the arrest warrant was valid, but didn't provide evidence to prove that Arrange was guilty.

What's the significant of the prosecutor not providing evidence for something that they didn't need to provide evidence for?

Right, I think we've got to the position that I thought we might be in to start with. The only public case that you were basing all this on is the extradition hearing - the hearing in which the Court expressly stated that it was not judging Assange's guilt; in which there was literally no consideration of the evidence in relation to one of the allegations, and only cursory consideration in relation to the others; and in which the Swedish prosecutor didn't even appear.

I suppose if you want to come to a settled judgement on that basis, that's your prerogative. I suspect that it's too big of a gap for us to come to agreement; and in any case the legal system, like me, considers it only to have been a preliminary hearing.

Every little bit of information that has been leaked about this case has been reproduced on a thousand websites. If a case had been presented there would be innumerable translations and commentaries - it would be easy to find. A cynic would say that the reason you're refusing to give the link is that you know it doesn't exist.

To respond to your specific comments:

I know that there was an extradition hearing (judgment text). However, as I explained before, the case did not have to be presented at that hearing, and was not presented at that hearing. The Court reviewed a very small amount of material to ensure that the formal requirements of the Framework Decision were met - that's all. If you're basing a conclusion about Assange's innocence or guilt on that judgment you're building a tower without any foundations.

My use of the phrase "criminal case" was not an accident. My point is that there are no filings that form part of the process by which Assange's guilt or innocence are assessed. You refer me to the English extradition hearing, but that hearing did not (and could not) make any judgement about his guilt.

I still can't find this case that's open for inspection. The Swedish prosecutor has a chronology which doesn't refer to any charges having been filed. Justice for Assange has a list of available documents that doesn't include any Swedish case, and states that "no charges have been filed". If you know of this publicly available case, post it! I would love to read it! But nobody else - including the prosecutor and campaigners - seems to have any idea that it exists.

The reason that I ask you to post a link to the case that you refer to isn't that I'm lazy and want you to do the work - it's that I think that we are at cross purposes, and you are referring to something that I don't recognise as being a case that's sufficient to judge Assange's innocence or guilt. If you will just post the source that you're relying on we can get to the bottom of it quickly.

It might be helpful to point out that the judge in this case, Lord Justice Laws, is a Court of Appeal judge sitting in the High Court - this could be a coincidence, but it's likely a reflection of the case being taken seriously and allocated an extremely experienced and senior judge.

Lord Justice Laws has ruled against the Government in a number of extremely high-profile cases, including the first case of a judge suspending the operation of a properly passed statute. He is well known for his view that the Courts have a constitutional power to uphold fundamental rights against Parliament, and that it is the role of the Courts (rather than political forces, which is the majority view in British jurisprudence) to hold Parliament and the Government to account. For any American Slashdotters, I'll also clarify that our judges are not political appointments and there is no realistic way that the Government could force him out.

My point is that Law LJ is absolutely not able to be pushed around by the Government. I don't really believe that any of our senior judges are, but if you were looking for a judge who would err in favour of the executive, he is exactly the person you would not want. You can criticize the law - and I would tend to agree with you that it is too broad - but it's certainly not the case that a verdict in favour of the Government was inevitable regardless of the facts.

Could you provide a link to the evidence that you consider to be complete?

My understanding is that:

• i) the case has not been presented;
• ii) there has been no "filing" in the criminal case against him;
• iii) the case - such as exists at the moment - is not open for public inspection (if it were, it would be a bit odd for the pro-Assange websites to be trumpeting leaked documents, surely?).

I think that if you post a link to the fully presented case it will probably clear things up.

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think that you've quite understood the process.

There has not been a public case yet in which the prosecutor has had to lay out the evidence against Assange. There has been no hearing where the object was to determine whether he was guilty.

I'm guessing that by "read the case" you mean the English High Court case, but that was an extradition hearing. The Court was not required to consider the strength of the case against Assange, and there was no obligation to prove the case. That comes later in the process.

What's available on the internet is a few leaked documents and some speculation - nothing on which to build a conclusion.

At present, the only person who has been able to consider all the evidence against Assange is the Swedish prosecutor, who considers that there is a case to answer. In due course a Court will determine whether Assange is guilty, but in the meantime, anyone saying that they've read a few scraps of information here and there, and are therefore able confidently to say that the prosecutor is wrong, hasn't understood how little they know of the facts.

If you can imagine situations in which it would still be rape despite the woman having consented earlier, clearly it doesn't logically follow that consenting earlier in the evening means it will not be rape to have sex with the person while they sleep.

In which case it all comes down to the facts, and anyone saying on Slashdot that they know whether he is guilty or not is kidding themselves, because they don't have all the facts.

I don't think that that follows as a matter of logic.

It's purely a question of where being charged fits into the legal process, I think. In the UK, for example, you're usually charged after being arrested, so you would be extradited first and charged second (because you can't be arrested until you arrive). An example of that was Hussain Osman, who was extradited from Italy and arrested and charged on arrival.

This is complete nonsense.

If you have no idea what you're talking about, everything is "unheard of".

Where a European State seeks to prosecute someone in another European country it is completely normal for Interpol to handle the communication between forces, and (according to Interpol's stats, and counting both formal notices and communications only sent to a particular country) happens about 20,000 times a year.

Notices can be issued for a wide range of offences. The first page of published notices on the Interpol website included, at the time of this comment, individuals wanted in connection with murder, rape, sexual assault, forging a passport and "unlawfully using a computer with the intention to commit an offence".

This is a little misleading, since it ignores the obvious reasons why this is the case: it ignores that Assange's case is very unusual, since the police know exactly where he is and have a warrant for his arrest, but cannot carry it out; and it ignores that Hans Crescent and the surrounding streets are home to a number of embassies and missions, meaning that there would often be police there in any case.

It's also not true to say that it's unheard of - in other cases of people taking refuge in embassies, police or other state authorities have waited outside to apprehend them.

Do you have a source for this? I've never heard that the alleged victims "changed their minds" (which, I feel compelled to say, is a bit of a distasteful turn of phrase) and it would surprise me that their statements would be released to the public.

I'm not quite sure what this is meant to achieve.

Does it hide the source of your funds?

No - if you pay 10 bitcoins in and get 10 bitcoins out, the fact that they may not be the same bitcoins isn't going to confuse anyone. If you've logged everything, as you suggest, this is going to be transparent.

Does it avoid anti money laundering ("AML") legislation?

No - AML legislation makes it an offence to attempt to hide the source, ownership or control of funds. Running this scheme would be an offence in itself.

Will it allow you to bring the money into regular circulation?

No - this isn't going to provide any response to the question "what is the ultimate source of your funds", which is the key question that banks, lawyers and other regulated bodies are required to ask as part of their AML procedure. (In fact, in my jurisdiction, the suspicious Bitcoin transaction would be enough to require them to make a report to the police).

It seems to me that your suggestion takes a very literal interpretation of "money laundering", and assumes that it means breaking the link between the exact money that you obtained illegally and the exact money that you have now. That's part of it, but there's a lot more involved and, crucially, breaking that link is not enough on its own either (i) to pass AML checks, or (ii) to avoid conviction for the AML or handling the proceeds of crime offences.

It's only nonsense if you accept that, to be a good programmer, you have to be motivated right at the start of the course - being motivated after you've done some of the course, and the importance has been made clear, is not enough.

I don't see any reason that that would be the case. In fact, I suspect that the biggest difference between the people who are motivated at the outset and the others, is that the former have already seen the importance and power of the CLI. In such a case, there's no obvious difference between their motivation once the importance and power have been explained.